Effects of Message Valence,Communicator Credibility,and Source Anonymity on Reactions to Peer Feedback

Abstract

Three possible determinants of subordinates' intended performance and affective reactions to simulated peer feedback received via superiors in an American context were examined. Valence of feedback, credibility of supervisor, and anonymity or identity of peer sources of feedback were manipulated in a 2 × 2 × 2 design. Subjects responded to two scenarios depicting a superior relating peer feedback to a subordinate. The results indicated that feedback valence had a strong effect on both dependent measures. Contrary to expectations, neither supervisor credibility nor anonymity of source interacted significantly with valence. Credibility and anonymity did significantly interact with each other when male and female subjects were separately analyzed.     

Self‐Supervisor Agreement: The Influence of Feedback Seeking on the Relationship Between Self and Supervisor Ratings of Performance1

Self‐assessment research has continued to search for those factors that increase self‐other rating agreement. The current field study investigated the feedback‐seeking strategies (i. e., monitoring and inquiry) used by 125 employees to obtain performance information, as well as the relationship between feedback‐seeking strategy use and self‐supervisor performance‐rating agreement. Results indicate that the frequency of monitoring reported by employees significantly moderated the relationship between self and supervisor ratings of performance. Individuals who reported higher levels of feedback seeking through monitoring were more likely to have self‐assessments that were congruent with their supervisors' ratings of performance.     

You don't act like you trust me: dissociations between behavioural and explicit measures of source credibility judgement

This study compared explicit and behavioural measures of source credibility judgements based on two factors: a source's past record of accuracy and its production of predictions that participants would like to believe. The former is considered to be a rational factor for judging credibility, while the latter is considered nonrational (i.e., it does not predict actual credibility). In Experiments 1 and 2, participants saw an equal number of predictions from two sources, one of which was either highly or slightly more accurate/desirable than the other. In Experiment 3, either one source was high accuracy and the other high desirability, or one source was higher on both measures. For all experiments, participants then saw new accurate and inaccurate predictions and said which source they thought was most likely to produce each (behavioural task). Participants then gave a percentage rating for each source's perceived accuracy (explicit judgement task). Participants showed sensitivity to past accuracy differences using both tasks, but not to the size of the differences. Desirability influenced performance only on the behavioural task. However, when the two factors conflicted, participants responded solely using past accuracy information. Behaviours reflect source credibility judgements based on both rational and irrational factors, but participants appear to be both more strongly influenced by the rational factor and more aware of that influence.     

The relative importance of task,citizenship and counterproductive performance to job performance ratings: Do rater source and team‐based culture matter?

This study contributes to our understanding of which factors predict raters' policies for combining performance components into an overall job performance rating. We used a work‐roles framework to examine the effects of rater source and team‐based culture. The sample consisted of 612 individuals in three job categories (317 nurses, 168 personnel recruiters and 127 sales representatives). Respondents rated employee performance profiles that were described on task, citizenship and counterproductive performance. Raters' weights differed by (a) organizational culture (low‐ vs. high‐team‐based); (b) rating source (supervisor vs. peer) and (c) job. In a team‐based culture, more weight was given to citizenship performance and less to task performance. Peers attached more importance to citizenship performance and less to task performance. Implications of these findings for performance management are discussed.     

Exploring the Individual's Perception of Sources and Credibility of Feedback in the Work Environment

This study reports on the construction of an instrument to assess individuals' perceptions of feedback from various sources in a work environment, and to investigate the effects of the sources' credibility on those perceptions. Six dimensions were found to reflect the sources of feedback and the type of information they convey, and 10 dimensions were found to represent the degree of credibility the individual attributes to the sources of feedback. Data collected from a heterogeneous sample of 706 employees in the UK and Brazil were analysed to establish the reliability and construct validity of the questionnaire.     

Feedback type as a moderator of the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions

The aim of the current study is to shed new light on the inconsistent relationship between performance‐approach (PAp) goals and feedback reactions by examining feedback type as a moderator. Results of a field experiment (N = 939) using a web‐based work simulation task showed that the effect of achievement‐approach goals was moderated by feedback type. Relative to individuals pursuing mastery‐approach goals, individuals pursuing PAp goals responded more negatively to comparative feedback but not to task‐referenced feedback. In line with the hypothesized mediated moderation model, the interaction between achievement goals and feedback type also indirectly affected task performance through feedback reactions. Providing employees with feedback is a key psychological principle used in a wide range of human resource and performance management instruments (e.g., developmental assessment centres, multi‐source/360° feedback, training, selection, performance appraisal, management education, computer‐adaptive testing, and coaching). The current study suggests that organizations need to strike a balance between encouraging learning and encouraging performance, as too much emphasis on comparative performance (both in goal inducement and in feedback style) may be detrimental to employees' reactions and rate of performance improvement.     

A test of Weiner's attribution theory inertial motivation hypothesis1

This study (N= 160 males) examined the cognitive and inertial motivation effects of overt success feedback on subjects high and low in resultant achievement motivation. The cognitive effects of overt success feedback were investigated by requesting attributions to effort, ability, luck, and task difficulty concerning performance on a digit symbol substitution task. The inertial motivation effects of overt success feedback were investigated through a transfer design. Results indicated overt success feedback to have an inertial motivation effect on performance efficiency at a subsequent verbal learning task. The results provided evidence against Weiner's (1972) attribution theory version of the inertial motivation hypothesis, and were interpreted within the general learning theory framework combined with the achievement and test anxiety models of Atkinson and Sarason. The interpretation offered considers the various experimental conditions as sources of motivation.     

Susceptibility to postidentification feedback is affected by source credibility

How much a person is affected by postidentification feedback is dependent on the credibility of the person giving the feedback. Seven hundred and ninety participants across three experiments viewed a crime video, made judgments from a line‐up, were provided with co‐witness and/or outcome feedback (from police officers [high credibility] or children [low credibility]), and answered testimony‐relevant questions (e.g. How good a view did you get of the person in the video?). The aim was to find out how high versus low credibility co‐witness feedback affects a witness' retrospective judgments (Experiment 1) as well as estimations of these co‐witnesses' judgments (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 showed that the feedback effect was only observed when the co‐witness responses were attributed to a high credibility source. Experiment 2 showed that high credibility co‐witnesses were estimated to score higher on the testimony‐relevant questions as compared to low credibility co‐witnesses. Experiment 3 showed that outcome feedback (e.g. ‘you identified the suspect’) produces stronger effects on testimony‐relevant questions than co‐witness feedback. The implications of these findings are that when postidentification feedback is present, it is important to determine the source of this feedback. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Confidence via correction: The effect of judgment correction on consumer confidence

At times, consumers are motivated to reduce the influence of a product recommendation on their judgments. Based on previous research, it is unclear whether this correction process will increase or decrease consumers' confidence in their judgments. We find that source credibility moderates the effect of correction on confidence: correction decreases confidence when a product recommendation comes from a high credibility source but increases confidence when the same message comes from a low credibility source. As a result, correction increases the effectiveness of recommendations from low credibility sources on purchase intentions. Notably, this “confidence via correction” effect is further moderated by elaboration, such that the effect is attenuated for high elaboration consumers. Our results have implications for understanding consumers' reactions to persuasive messages and for both marketing practitioners and consumer protection agencies using correction cues to influence message persuasiveness.     

Interpreting and reacting to feedback in stereotype-relevant performance domains

Feedback on task performance is often phrased in subjective language (e.g., “not bad!”), but how do recipients understand or translate that feedback into a clear, objective, performance metric? We suggest that when feedback is provided in a stereotype-relevant domain, translation is made with reference to stereotyped expectations for one's group. In Study 1, women and men were exposed to negative subjective feedback about their performance on a leadership task; in Study 2, Black and White participants were provided subjective negative feedback, or no feedback, on an academic writing task. Women relative to men, and Black students relative to White students, translated their feedback to indicate objectively worse performance. Furthermore, this translation mediated a drop in the importance placed on the domain among women and Blacks. This research extends the literature on gender- and race-based reactions to feedback by noting the importance of the immediate interpretation of the feedback received.     

Reactions to Interpersonal Evaluative Feedback1

Self-enhancement approaches to self-concept provide a perspective for identifying motivational factors likely to be affected by interpersonal evaluative feedback. The main hypothesies were that in contrast to positive feedback, negative feedback would lead to higher self-esteem, lower perceptions of task importance, and lower perceptions of control over an evaluator's reactions. Students received a lesson on solving analogies from a teacher (confederate), and then took a test on analogies. After reviewing the student's test, the teacher conveyed either positive feedback, negative feedback, or no feedback. Consistent with a self-enhancement perspective, recipients of negative feedback increased their global self-esteem, placed less importance on succeeding at the task, and felt less control over the teachers' reactions. Implications for understanding the role of interpersonal evaluative feedback in motivation and self-esteem, and self-enhancing responses to threats more generally are discussed.     

Rating leniency and halo in multisource feedback ratings: testing cultural assumptions of power distance and individualism-collectivism

This study extends multisource feedback research by assessing the effects of rater source and raters' cultural value orientations on rating bias (leniency and halo). Using a motivational perspective of performance appraisal, the authors posit that subordinate raters followed by peers will exhibit more rating bias than superiors. More important, given that multisource feedback systems were premised on low power distance and individualistic cultural assumptions, the authors expect raters' power distance and individualism-collectivism orientations to moderate the effects of rater source on rating bias. Hierarchical linear modeling on data collected from 1,447 superiors, peers, and subordinates who provided developmental feedback to 172 military officers show that (a) subordinates exhibit the most rating leniency, followed by peers and superiors; (b) subordinates demonstrate more halo than superiors and peers, whereas superiors and peers do not differ; (c) the effects of power distance on leniency and halo are strongest for subordinates than for peers and superiors; (d) the effects of collectivism on leniency were stronger for subordinates and peers than for superiors; effects on halo were stronger for subordinates than superiors, but these effects did not differ for subordinates and peers. The present findings highlight the role of raters' cultural values in multisource feedback ratings.     

PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION: EVIDENCE OF CONCEPTUAL CONVERGENCE

This study investigates the degree to which performance feedback information can be conceptually housed within an existing theoretical framework of organizational communication. If one's job can be conceptualized as a work information environment, then logically there should be some communality between organizational communication and performance feedback information. In this study 213 faculty members at Iowa State University completed a questionnaire addressing patterns of organizational communication within their respective academic departments and feedback on their own job performance provided them by multiple sources. In order to uncover any underlying congruence between the communication and feedback constructs, the data were subjected to canonical correlation analysis. The results revealed that the type of feedback, source of feedback, and perceived reliability of feedback sources were all found to interact in logical patterns with selected dimensions of organizational communication.     

Students' R]eactions to Teachers' E]valuations: The Unique Impact of Negative Feedback1

This study attempts to identify some of the processes mediating self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom. Specifically, we hypothesized that negative feedback conveyed by teachers would influence students' p]erceptions of how the teacher viewed their success/failure, effort, ability and task difficulty more than positive feedback. In response to college students' s]core on an anagrams test, a (confederate) teacher expressed either positive, negative or no evaluative feedback. Questionnaires assessed students' s]elf-perceptions and perceptions of the teacher's evaluations of them. Consistent with our hypotheses, negative feedback was seen as a more credible indicator of the teacher's evaluation than positive feedback. Furthermore, negative feedback led students to believe that the teacher held an extremely unfavorable but inaccurate impression of their effort and ability and that the teacher underestimated the difficulty of the task. There were few differences between the effects of positive feedback and no feedback, and there were no significant effects on self-perceptions. These findings suggest new insights into negativity effects in evaluations and into the mechanisms underlying self-fulfilling prophecies.     

Partner Characteristics and Social Contagion: Does Group Composition Matter?

People's incorrect recalls can contaminate their collaborators' performance on subsequent tasks, referred to as the social contagion of memory. Research investigating how expectations about group members' abilities and affiliations relate to such contagion has given little attention to the mechanisms underlying any differential reliance on collaborators' contributions. In two experiments, we investigated whether expectations about a collaborative partner influence social contagion and whether source monitoring was related to any differential reliance. Contagion was reduced, for both accurate and inaccurate information, when participants worked with a partner perceived to be of low as compared with high credibility. Participants also showed reduced contagion after working with an out‐group as compared with an in‐group partner. These findings indicate that partner characteristics influence whether the information generated during a collaborative task is encoded and/or relied upon later. Expectations about potentially problematic sources can motivate resistance to misinformation through careful monitoring of partner contributions. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Understanding the motivational effects of procedural and informational justice in feedback processes

Building upon traditional feedback models, this study examined the role of fair treatment in feedback contexts. Structural equation modelling using data from 236 undergraduate students highlighted perceived accuracy as a mediator in the credibility‐motivation relationship as well as a relationship between accuracy and perceptions of procedural and informational justice. In addition, the results showed that the motivating effects of feedback accuracy partially occurred through procedural justice perceptions. Tests of an alternative model also demonstrated the interactive effects of credibility and accuracy on justice perceptions. Overall, this study provides insight into the role of fairness in appraisal processes, as well as how fairness might enhance recipients' reactions to appraisal and, subsequently, the effectiveness of appraisal systems.     

Assessing measurement equivalence across rating sources: a multitrait-multirater approach

Research examining the structure of multisource performance ratings has demonstrated that ratings are a direct function of both who is doing the rating (rating source) as well as what is being rated (performance dimension). A separate line of research has focused on the extent to which performance ratings are equivalent across sources. To date no research has examined the measurement equivalence of multisource ratings within the context of both dimension and rating source direct effects on ratings. We examine the impact of both performance dimension and rating source as well as the degree of measurement equivalence across sources. Results indicate that (a) the impact of the underlying performance dimension is the same across rating sources, (b) the impact of rating source is substantial and only slightly smaller than the impact of the underlying performance dimension, and (c) the impact of rating source differs substantially depending on the source.     

Evaluating Sources of Ego-Threatening Feedback: Self-Esteem and Narcissism Effects

High self-esteem individuals in previous studies have tended to deny the credibility of negative evaluators. The present research examined possible explanations for this finding and compared the effects of self-esteem and narcissism on evaluations of negative feedback sources. Following bogus negative feedback, self-esteem predicted negative evaluations of a nonperson feedback source and positive affect, as expected from consistency theory; narcissism predicted negative evaluations of a person feedback source and hostile affect, as expected from threat-derogation and narcissism theory. Results indicate the importance of distinguishing between healthy and defensive self-esteem in understanding responses to negative feedback.     

Source credibility and syllogistic reasoning

Two experiments examined whether a source credibility effect would be observed for a syllogistic reasoning task. In the experiments, people were given two statements, presented as the results from a survey, followed by a conclusion that was supposedly made by one of two sources. In Experiment 1, one of the sources was described as honest and the other as dishonest, and in Experiment 2, one of the sources was described as an expert and the other as a non-expert. Because a pilot experiment showed that credibility can be overridden by people’s experience with a source, all conclusions in Experiments 1 and 2 were ones that were likely to be accepted (i.e., necessary and possible strong conclusions). Both experiments showed a clear source credibility effect, particularly for the invalid conclusions. These results, along with the belief bias effect and previous research with conditional reasoning, suggest that people can be influenced by extraneous context, such as the honesty or expertise of a source, in a syllogistic reasoning task.